Opinion
No. C04-0117MMC(PR)
March 22, 2004
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Reggie Jones, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. Plaintiff sues various local government entities for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights during the course of his prosecution in state court. He alleges that he has been "`unjustly accused by conspiracy and coercion," denied "exculpatory evidence" in his favor, and his personal property has been "illegally searched and seized without a court warrant or order." He seeks money damages.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of Imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff alleging a violation of § 1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey. 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id at 487. Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights have been violated insofar as the charges against him are unjust, exculpatory evidence has been withheld from him, and that he has been subjected to illegal searches and seizure. If proven true, these claims would call into question the validity of his state court convictions. Accordingly, this action is barred until plaintiffs state court convictions have been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called into question.
In various letters to the court, plaintiff states that he is attempting to file an appeal of his state court conviction and that he is dissatisfied with his trial counsel's performance in this regard. Plaintiff must address these concerns to the state appellate courts, not this Court. Additionally, any claims that counsel was ineffective during the course of plaintiff's trial would implicate the validity of his conviction and thus would be barred under the rationale of Heck.
For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no filing fee is due.
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.